American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2302 (Union) and United States Department of the Army, United States Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, Kentucky (Agency)

[ v63 p77 ]

63 FLRA No. 26

AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LOCAL 2302
(Union)

and

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES
ARMY ARMOR CENTER
FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY
(Agency)

0-AR-4387

_____

DECISION

January 22, 2009

_____

Before the Authority: Thomas M. Beck, Chairman and
Carol Waller Pope, Member

      This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator John S. West filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.

      Under § 7122(a) of the Statute, an award is deficient if it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation, or it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case and Authority precedent, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). See AFGE, Local 2921, 50 FLRA 184, 185-86 (1995) (arbitrator's determination of the procedural arbitrability of a grievance is subject to challenge only on grounds other than those that directly challenge the procedural arbitrability determination); AFGE, Local 1668, 50 FLRA 124, 126 (1995) (award not deficient on ground that arbitrator failed to provide a fair hearing where excepting party fails to demonstrate that the arbitrator refused to hear or consider pertinent and material evidence, or that other actions in conducting the proceeding so prejudiced a party so as to affect the fairness of the proceeding as a whole); United States Dep't of Labor (OSHA), 34 FLRA 573, 575 (1990) (award not deficient as failing to draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement where excepting party fails to establish that the award cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected to the wording and purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; does not represent a plausible interpretation o